Author: Kajoyan Gevork

EurasiaReview
Jan 5 2015

The Turkish-Armenian Border Gate – Analysis

January 5, 2015
By Kamer Kasim

Although the closed Turkish-Armenian border is just one of the issues
in Turkish-Armenian relations, it has time and time again made its
appearance on the agenda.

Despite Turkey’s recognition of the independence of Armenia after the
disintegration of the Soviet Union, normal diplomatic relations could
not be established. Armenia’s state policy regarding genocide
allegations and its tentativeness with respect to the Kars Treaty,
which draws the Turkish-Armenian border, have created a rift in the
two countries’ relations. The Armenian Declaration of Independence
states that “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of
achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman
Turkey and Western Armenia.” Here, the term “Western Armenia” refers
to territories within modern Turkey.

Location and extent of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast
(lighter color)

Despite this, the Turkish-Armenian border remained open until the
Armenian forces’ occupation of Kelbecer, which clearly indicated that
Armenia had no intention of withdrawing from Azerbaijani territories.

On the contrary, the Armenian forces continued to occupy more ground
during the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. As a result, Turkey closed its
border with Armenia in order to demonstrate its support for
Azerbaijan. After a ceasefire to the conflict was arranged, Turkey has
used diplomatic channels to pursue a permanent solution. However, the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has not been resolved and violations to the
ceasefire have increased the risk of war.

Why is there pressure to open the border coming from the US and the EU?

The US and the EU are not comfortable with Armenia’s policy to
maintain and further strategic ties with Russia. Indeed, Armenia has
become a country in which Russia has stationed military installments
without much domestic objection. Even the Armenian diaspora in the US
is not pleased with the state of Armenia’s relations with Russia.

Some circles in the US and the EU have maintained that if the
Turkish-Armenian border were to open, then Armenia would integrate
with the West via Turkey and come to depend less on Russia. The main
deficiency of this argument is that it ignores the weakness of the
Armenian economy. The Armenian economy is in such a state that even if
the Turkish-Armenian border were to open, the trade volume between the
two countries would not experience a substantial rise and Russian
domination of the economic sphere in Armenia would persist.
Additionally, Armenia’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union
would actually indicate that Russian domination over Armenia would be
extended into the foreseeable future.

There is also the argument that if Turkey opens the border with
Armenia, the pressure coming from third countries for Turkey to
concede to genocide allegations would lessen. The administrations of
some countries which do not want their relations with Turkey to be
upset by the allegations of genocide are particularly prone to employ
this argument. Nonetheless, this argument lacks substance as the
Armenian diaspora would continue its activities regarding genocide
allegations independent from the state of Turkey-Armenia relations.

Turkey and Armenia have signed protocols with the encouragement of
various third countries who hoped for a resultant normalization of
Turkish-Armenian relations. Upon ratification of these protocols the
Turkish-Armenian border would be opened within two months. Regarding
the issue of genocide allegations, which is also one of the obstacles
to the improvement of the two countries’ bilateral relations, a
sub-commission would be established in order to provide an impartial
scientific examination of the historical records.

While Azerbaijan has voiced disappointment that the protocols give no
mention of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem, the Armenian diaspora has
also criticized the protocols as well as the Armenian administration
due to the article about the establishment of a historical
sub-commission.

When it comes to the ratification of the protocols in Armenia, the
approval of the Armenian Constitutional Court is needed. While the
Armenian Constitutional Court reviewed the compatibility of the
protocols with the Armenian Constitution, it interpreted the protocols
in a way that actually clashed with the spirit of the protocols and
thus created a great debate about the meaning of the protocol’s
articles.

For example, the Armenian Constitutional Court stated that the
provisions of the protocols could not be interpreted or applied in the
legislative process, and that their implications for the Republic of
Armenia as well as its interstate relations actually contradicted
provisions of the preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of
Armenia and the requirements of Paragraph 11 of the Declaration of
Independence of Armenia. Since the Armenian Declaration of
Independence refers to the genocide allegations and mentions “Western
Armenia”, general questions have been raised about the protocols’
provisions regarding territorial integrity and the formation of the
historical sub-commission.

Turkey expects the protocols to allow discussion of the genocide
allegations on a scientific platform as well as to facilitate
Armenia’s open recognition of the borders as they currently stand. If
these expectations are not met, the protocols would be meaningless for
Turkey, as it would be irrational for Turkey to open the border, which
was initially closed due to the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani
territories, without a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

Why Turkey shouldn’t open the Border without a Solution to the
Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

Turkey should not open the border without a solution to the issue that
provoked its closure in the first place. Turkey-Azerbaijan relations
would be damaged if Turkey acts otherwise. Besides, Turkey’s image
would be negatively affected if it did not show decisive support to
this strategic partner.

To open the border without a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem
would be baseless according to both ethical and realistic rationales.
>From an ethical point of view, it would be problematic to open the
border seeing that Armenia has continued its occupation of Azerbaijani
territories while showing no intention to withdraw. Moreover, there
are UN resolutions that call for the end of Armenian occupation and
respect for Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized borders and
territorial integrity. This is not to mention the massacres of
Azerbaijani populations that have taken place during the
Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict.

>From a realistic point of view, the greater importance of Azerbaijan,
as compared to that of Armenia, with respect to Turkey’s regional role
necessitates that it not open the Armenian border without a solution
to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. Azerbaijan has a GDP of 103 billion
US Dollars and has even invested more than 5 billion US Dollars in one
single project in Turkey (Star Refinery).

There are also crucial energy lines between the two countries, namely,
the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum
natural gas pipeline. Moreover, railway lines between the two
countries are under construction and the contract for TANAP (the
Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline), which envisages an annual
transportation capacity of 16 billion cubic meters in 2020 and 31
billion cubic meters in 2026, has been signed. On the other hand,
natural resource-poor Armenia, which hosts a small GDP of 20 billion
US Dollars and relies heavily on Russia, does not hold much economic
potential for Turkey.

The arguments and data that have been presented by the circles who
actively lobbied for the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations,
and particularly for the opening of the border, did not take into
account Armenia’s economic realities. The argument that the
Nagorno-Karabakh problem is independent from Turkish-Armenian
relations neglects the fact that Turkey closed its border with Armenia
due to the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict in the first place.

Some Western countries which offered financial support to Armenia
based upon the expectation that it would grow closer to the West, all
the while ignoring Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani territories and
violation of its internationally recognized borders, are now
disappointed with Armenia’s membership to the Eurasian Economic Union.
Taxpayers in these Western countries should question the financial
assistance that was given to Armenia knowing the fact that it had
shown no indication of changing its foreign policy.

The solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem is not only the prime
condition for sustainable peace and stability in the Caucasus, but
also for the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations.

George Shirinian, Executive Director
Zoryan Institute
255 Duncan Mill Rd., Suite 310
Toronto, ON
Canada M3B 3H9
Tel: 416-250-9807 Fax: 416-512-1736

The Centennial Commemoration Is About Truth, Memory and Justice, Not Hatred

K.M. Greg Sarkissian, President, Zoryan Institute
January 5, 2015

It is 2015. Soon, we will start commemorating the centennial of the Armenian
Genocide and pay tribute to the memory of some 1.5 million victims of the
Young Turk regime of the Ottoman Empire. We will also pay tribute to the
memory of those few Turks, Kurds, Arabs and others who risked their own
lives to help Armenians escape certain death.

There are several reasons why we should remember especially those courageous
Turks who, first and foremost, objected to the mass deportation and murder
of their Armenian neighbors by their own government and countrymen. Second,
they did not become by-standers, and swayed by religious piety and their
respect for human life and dignity saved some of the Armenians, with
compassion and care. Third, it gives a more positive basis for Turks and
Armenians to look together at 1915 as part of their shared history.

No one knows how many individual acts of courage and humanity occurred
during that period of horror and death. One such person, Haji Khalil, a
devoted Muslim and a righteous Turk, was my grandfather’s business partner.
He had promised my grandfather he would care for his family in case of
misfortune. When the disaster greater than anything either of them could
have imagined struck, my grandfather, Krikor, was hung just for being an
Armenian. But Haji Khalil kept his promise. He hid my grandmother, her
sister and their seven children in the attic of his house in Urfa for almost
a year. He fed and cared for them and saw them to safety to Aleppo. He did
this knowing well that whoever saved Armenians could have shared their fate
of death and destruction.

Some twenty years ago, in April of 1995, I shared the story of Haji Khalil
from the podium at an International conference entitled, “Problems of
Genocide” in Yerevan, which the Zoryan Institute had co-sponsored with the
Armenian government. I concluded my speech by saying,

I want to extend my hand to the people of Turkey, to ask them to remember
that though at one time their state was led by mass murderers, they also had
their Haji Khalils, and that it would honor the memory of the latter to
acknowledge the overwhelming truth of the Genocide, to express regrets, so
that the healing process may begin between our two peoples.

As a result of my speech, one of the scholars participating in the
conference, Taner Akçam, approached me with tears in his eyes, hugged me and
started telling me things in Turkish that I could not understand. But, I
could feel his warmth and his sincerity in trying to tell me that he
acknowledged and shared the trauma and the pain that I was experiencing at
that moment. The next day we attended a memorial service in Etchmiadzin, the
Holy See of Armenian Church. There, I took him by the hand and asked him to
join me in lighting two candles, one in memory of my grandfather lit by him,
and another, which I lit in memory of Haji Khalil. Then we embraced and
promised each other that we would do everything possible to bring our
peoples together by preserving the legacy and the memory of that righteous
human being, Haji Khalil, and through him, undermine denial and promote
truth and justice.

Since that encounter in 1995, Dr. Akçam has written many well respected and
influential books and articles, published in several languages, about the
Armenian Genocide and the violence perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks. His
works demonstrate how the Ottoman Government, led by the Union and Progress
Party, inspired by the ideology of pan-Turanism and dreams of imperial
expansion, carried out the planned destruction of their own fellow citizens,
the entire Armenian population in its ancestral homeland for three
millennia.

During the next ten years, from 1995 to 2005, numerous tentative contacts
were made between Turks and Armenians. Some on an individual basis, some in
academic forums, where research and scholarship was shared and exchanged
between Turkish and Armenian scholars. Some, such as the Workshop on
Armenian-Turkish Studies or WATS, used virtual communication to facilitate
dialogue between Armenians and Turks. Some Turkish scholars visited various
research centres, such as the Zoryan Institute and the Armenian Studies
Chairs, to learn about the research conducted and/or to view oral history
testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide. Some 15 Turkish students have
attended the Comparative Genocide Course run by the Zoryan Institute with
the University of Toronto some continued their studies to become recognized
specialists of the Armenian Genocide.

Some businessmen organized official forums, such as the Turkish Armenian
Business Development Council, to promote trade between the two countries,
hoping that trade would be the best way to bring these two peoples together.
Attempts were made even by the Armenian government a few years ago, through
the so called `football diplomacy’ for rapprochement with the Turkish
government. This was followed by the signing of the as yet unratified
“Protocols.”

All of these efforts were attempts to bring about a change in the attitudes
of these two peoples, who continued to see each other through the prism of
the events 1915 as unchanging and monolithic enemies. Unfortunately, more
work is needed by both Turkish and Armenian civil societies to raise
awareness about the events of 1915, to encourage the Turkish state to change
its narrative.

There were strong voices that wanted to reclaim history as a legacy that
needed to be recognized, and thus pressed their government to abolish all
obstacles to this process. For example, the series of events since 1995,
described above, led to the first public conference on Armenian issues which
was organized by Turkish academics and intellectuals and took place in
Istanbul on May 25, 2005, entitled “Ottoman Armenians during the Decline of
the Empire: Issues of Scientific Reasonability and Democracy.” Some of the
participants at this conference were scholars and intellectuals who were in
continuous contact with their Armenian counterparts. The conference was
condemned and criticized by the Turkish authorities. Just one day before the
conference, then Turkish Justice Minister Cemil Cicek accused those who
organized and participated in the conference of treason, calling them
traitors to their country, condemning the initiative as a blow to the
government’s attempts to counter a mounting Armenian campaign to have the
killings recognized internationally as genocide. He went as far as stating,
“This is a stab in the back to Turkish nation…” As a result, some of these
Turkish scholars, intellectuals and media representatives were charged,
persecuted and even jailed by Turkish authorities.

Since 2005, the Turkish government has continued its unrelenting denial
policy in spite of civil society wanting to know more about their own
history. The denial policies of the deep state, continued by the current
Turkish government, have led to hatred, discrimination and incitement of
violence towards the remaining Armenians in Turkey. This policy culminated
in the killing of Hrant Dink, the editor of AGOS newspaper, who had openly
challenged the narrative of the government as an obstacle to democracy in
Turkey. Hrant Dink’s murder by a Turkish ultranationalist impacted not only
the Armenian community in Turkey, but also the Kurdish, Yezidi, Alevi and
other minorities, who saw the assassination as a major blow to freedom of
thought and speech and to their aspiration for cultural and religious
freedom.

Those who fear that Turkey will succeed “to neutralize the effect of the
Armenian side’s preparations for the centennial of the Armenian Genocide,”
do not sufficiently believe in the power of historical truth. No matter what
Turkey does through its policy of denial, it cannot avoid the facts of
history. Fear of Turkish “penetration” of Armenian society, in the Diaspora
and/or in Armenia, concern about causing “domestic disagreements” to “take
control of society” reduces Armenians and Armenia to hapless victims rather
than aware, independent adults who are able to articulate and defend their
national interest.

All denial attempts, whether that be by distorting history or cajoling
certain members of Armenian society to cooperate with them, have not helped
Turkey in controlling Armenian society. On the contrary, they have only
strengthened the resolve of Armenians worldwide to mobilize for
acknowledgement and restorative justice because Armenians collectively are
fully aware of their history and the profoundly devastating effects of
genocide on their nation.

“To speak well of the Turks that saved Armenians” actually helps
contextualize and bring home for Turks what the Armenian Genocide was all
about. One cannot talk about Turks who saved Armenians without explaining
what it is they saved the Armenians from. This can only help promote shared
knowledge of history and a past that both societies can talk about to each
other, on a common basis of understanding and without any fear of
persecution. Hopefully this can lead to dialogue and eventually
reconciliation.

We must have hope that the human values, fortified with the knowledge of
historical truth, will eventually empower Turkish civil society to demand
its government more effectively to embrace the facts of history. Without
that, there will be no true democracy and therefore no security for any
individual or collective in that country.

Such empowerment is already evident by the fact that currently, two Turkish
human rights organizations are partnering with the International Institute
for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, (A Division of the Zoryan Institute)
to jointly submit a brief to the European Court of Human Rights in the
Perin̤ek case Рa matter of genocide denial Рdocumenting his discriminatory
and racist activities and statements against Armenians in Turkey and
Switzerland. Such instances of co-operation strengthen contacts between the
two societies and serve as evidence of the power of shared universal human
values.

We cannot be oblivious to the changes happening in Turkey. Armenians have a
role in helping Turkish society learn and understand the indisputable facts
of the Armenian Genocide through education, dialogue and contacts on all
levels of Turkish society. This is a critical process in order to emancipate
both societies from this problem of enmity, prejudice and hatred.

Uruguay’s Foreign Ministry calls for self-determination and recognition of
Nagorno Karabakh

Agencia Prensa Armenia

The Uruguayan Foreign Ministry asked for the international recognition
of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh and the right of its people to
self-determination on Sunday January 4, after a meeting with Armenian
representatives ( Link -> ) .

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay Luis Almagro met with
members of the Armenian National Committee of Uruguay and Mario
Nalpatian, member of the International Armenian National Committee, to
discuss the situation in the South Caucasus and the continuing
violations of the ceasefire by Azerbaijan, which merited a strong
condemnation from the Minister.

Almagro stressed the “need for a peaceful settlement of Nagorno
Karabakh taking particular account of the right to self-determination
of the Armenian people and the principle of territorial integrity of
the Republic of Armenia under its borders as an independent country
between May 1918 and December 1920”.

“In September 2011 the Minister of Foreign Affairs made public that
Uruguay had begun to analyze the case of Nagorno Karabakh in order to
take a State decision about it,” said the representatives of Armenian
National Committee of Uruguay. “Since then there have been meetings of
the Chancellor and senior officials of the Uruguayan government with
the Foreign Ministers of the Republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan and
with the respective ambassadors in Uruguay”.

“On the legislative front, dozens of legislators had the opportunity
to meet the President of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh during his
visit to the Uruguayan Parliament in December 2011. In turn, a
parliamentary delegation led by President of the Chamber of
representatives Jorge Orrico and legislators of all parliamentary
parties visited the Republic in November 2012, where they met with
officials of the executive and legislative branches, as well as with
civil society of Nagorno Karabakh. The subject has also been present
on the visits by legislators and political leaders of all parties to
Azerbaijan from 2011 to date. More recently, the issue was addressed
in a joint declaration signed by Presidents Jose Mujica and Serzh
Sargsyan in July 2014, on the occasion of the official visit of the
president of the Republic of Armenia to Uruguay. Both presidents
stressed the need for a peaceful solution to the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict and supported the mediation of the Minsk Group of the OSCE,”
added the Armenian National Committee of Uruguay in a statement.

The official text of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay:
,inicio,ampliacion-ppal2,O,es,0,PAG;CONC;1961;39;D;-28286;1;PAG

“On the day of the date, Foreign Minister held a meeting with
representatives of the International Armenian National Committee and
Armenian National Committee of Uruguay. In the course of it, the
subjects of the South Caucasus region were discussed, showing the
Minister of Foreign Affairs a strong condemnation of violations of
ceasefire in Nagorno Karabakh by Azerbaijan which occur with
increasing regularity.

Also, taking as main reference the work of the Minsk Group, whose
Uruguay conclusions await to make its decision on recognition, he
reaffirmed the need for a peaceful settlement of Nagorno Karabakh that
will take particular account of the right to self-determination of the
Armenian people and the principle of territorial integrity of the
Republic of Armenia under its borders as an independent country
between May 1918 and December 1920 (prior to Sovietization).

The Foreign Minister took the opportunity to offer his Christmas
greetings for the next 6 January to the Armenian people of the
Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, hoping that
it will soon find its recognition in the international arena of
nations”.

( Link -> )
Agencia de Noticias Prensa Armenia
Armenia 1366, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Tel. (5411) 4775-7595
[email protected]
twitter.com/PrensaArmenia

Residents of Karchaghbyur village suffer carbon monoxide poisoning

Around 1:50 am on January 4 the Martuni regional unit of the Armenian
police received information from a hospital that nine residents of the
village of Karchaghbyur, aged from 1 to 75, were hospitalized after
suffering carbon monoxide poisoning from a gas and wood stove at their
house, the police said.

An investigation is underway.

05.01.15, 14:20

Azerbaijan commits 300 ceasefire violations

12:18 * 04.01.15

Azerbaijani troops committed 300 ceasefire violations since January 3,
according to the latest data by the Defense Army of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR).

More than 4,300 shots were fired from firearms of different caliber.
The NKR troops retaliated and continue their combat duty.

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Jan 4 2015

Preferences for Yerevan’s participation in integration projects are
not expected from Karabakh separatists

4 January 2015 – 4:40pm
Vestnik Kavkaza

About 40 countries and integration groupings formally expressed their
desire to create a free trade zone with the Eurasian Economic Union,
which came into force on 1 January. Negotiations are being held with
Vietnam, Israel, India and Egypt. However, the EEU still has to
“digest” its new members. Kyrgyzstan should become a fully-fledged
member of the Eurasian Union in only six months, but for Armenia this
issue has been resolved already.

The benefit of the Eurasian Economic Union to Yerevan obvious, the
benefit from Yerevan to the Eurasian Union is not.

The Armenian economy is not as great as the Russian or Kazakhstani
economies, which is likely to force other countries of the EEU to
invest in Armenia.

The share of the distributable Yerevan customs duties derived from
imports of goods into the territory of the EEU was 1.13%. At the same
time, the share of Belarus is reduced from 4.7% to 4.65%; Kazakhstan –
from 7.3% to 7.25%, Russia – from 88% to 86.97%.

Up to 2022, Armenia will be able to apply different rates from the EEU
customs duties on a number of products, including meat and meat
products. Until 2020 a separate tariff will operate for Yerevan for
some types of dairy products, e.g. eggs, honey, and until 2019 for
some types of fruit and nuts.

Armenia will also apply zero tariff rates on gasoline until 2018, and
on the common customs tariff the rate will switch in 2020. The same
principle will be regulated by the level of customs duties on certain
products of organic and inorganic chemistry, pharmaceutical products,
fertilizers, paints, household chemicals, leather, plastics and rubber
(including tyres).

Joining the EEU is unlikely to help Yerevan overcome the country’s
socio-political crisis. Experts point out that 2015 will be difficult
from the socio-economic point of view, and in terms of adapting to the
standards of the EEU. This is compounded by the problems of the lack
of common borders with the countries of the EEU and Armenia, and
instability in the Russian economy, on which essentially the Armenian
economy and Georgian rapprochement with Europe depends. The fact is
that for communication with Armenia it was planned to use just road
transport through the territory of Georgia through the Upper Lars
checkpoint – Kazbegi, or marine transport through the port of Poti.

But the main obstacle for Armenia’s accession to the EEU was
Nagorno-Karabakh – the territory of neighboring Azerbaijan, controlled
by Yerevan.

On 29 May at a meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in
Astana, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev said that Armenia can
join the EEU without Nagorno-Karabakh, meaning within the borders
recognized by the UN.

It was clear that Armenia joining the new integration association
would benefit everyone, but it is not clear to what purpose Yerevan
continued to “muddy the waters” with statements about the necessity of
entering the EEU with Karabakh.

As a result, the signing of the Treaty of Accession of Armenia to the
EEU was postponed several times, but finally in Yerevan it was
realized that to “drag” Karabakh into the EEU was unrealistic.

Experts have even said that it would be logical to consider Armenia’s
accession to the EEU after the settlement of the Karabakh conflict,
then no problems would exist. If the European Union has rules that
prohibit states with unresolved territorial conflicts from becoming
members of the European Union, then in the documents of the Eurasian
Economic Union this issue is not clearly specified. In this regard,
analysts predict that the Karabakh issue will sooner or later emerge
in the EEU.

Today Armenia needs serious internal reforms of its
criminal-oligarchic economic model, and it is clear that the best way
out of the political and economic crisis, which continues in Yerevan,
could be a constructive approach to the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In Armenia, it is realized that it was the
policy of the leadership of the republic that led to the current
deplorable state of the country, and that to get out of this impasse
will be extremely difficult. But supporters of the separatist regime
still build the illusion of “Greater Armenia” and hope for the
preferences of participation in such integration projects.

Armenia joining EEU provides the ability to export its goods to the
Common Market countries participating in this association, and some
observers fear that Yerevan may try to “push” products produced in
Nagorno-Karabakh to the markets of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus.
Naturally, we are not talking about massive exports, but a few hundred
bottles of alcoholic beverages produced in Nagorno-Karabakh can get
through Armenia to the markets of the Eurasian Union. However, in Baku
it is believed that, with respect for the prestige and image of
Azerbaijan in the world, none of the countries would want to spoil the
EEU’s relationship with Azerbaijan and won’t take advantage of
provocative transactions that may be offered by Armenia.

Al-Arabiya, UAE
Jan 4 2015

2015 – A definitive year for Turkish-Armenian relations

Sunday, 4 January 2015

The year of 2014 tested both Turkey’s foreign and domestic politics.
The security threat originating from the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (ISIS) at its doorsteps and the domestic political turmoil
challenged Turkish politics throughout the year. The foreign and the
domestic issues that emerged during the year of 2014 are likely to
continue during 2015.

However, among several foreign policy issues, Armenia seems to be the
most significant issue that would dominate Turkish politics in the
first half of 2015. Given the importance of 2015, the centennial of
the tragic events of 1915 that led to the mass killings of Armenians
by the Ottoman Empire during World War I, Turkish-Armenian relations
is expected to go through a hard test.

The tragic events of 1915 are a greatly controversial matter in Turkey
and Armenia as Armenians describe the events as “genocide” while
Turkey says the events do not amount to genocide and that both Turks
and Armenians were killed. April 2015, for this reason, will be very
significant for both Turkey and Armenia. Armenians, who will be
commemorating the centennial of the 1915 events, are engaged into
several efforts for the international recognition of this tragedy as a
“genocide”. On Turkish side, in response to the Armenians’ efforts for
2015, Turkish government plans to commemorate the centennial of the
Çanakkale (Dardanelles) campaign on April 24-25 in order to counter
the adverse effects of Armenian efforts.

Weathering the storm

According to Richard Giragosian, the director of the Yerevan-based
Regional Studies Center (RSC), there are both challenges and limits in
2015; however, he believes that the Turkish government would seek to
“weather the storm” of 2015, and only after the commemoration passes,
would consider returning to the process of diplomatic engagement with
Armenia.

Giragosian, in an interview last May in Yerevan, stated that Turkish
side was exaggerating the importance of the year 2015 to be greater
than it actually need be. “This is a psychological burden created by
Turkey in terms of making the year 2015 a big issue. Turkey
overreacting to the anniversary will only make the issue a bigger
one,” he said. Agreeing with Giragosian, I believe that rather than
considering 2015 as a panic year, Turkey should consider it as a year
for opportunity to resume efforts at normalizing relations with
Armenia. Turkey can take some significant steps, like it did in 2014,
for the normalization of relations with its neighbor in 2015.

Armenia seems to be the most significant foreign policy issue that
would dominate Turkish politics in the first half of 2015

Sinem Cengiz

Last year witnessed unprecedented, significant and historic
developments in Turkish-Armenian relations. However, the most
important step from the Turkish side came by then- Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the current president of Turkey, who issued a
historic and a timing message of condolences about killings of
Armenians in 1915. Erdogan’s statement came on 23 April, a day before
of 99th anniversary of the tragic events.

For the first time in the history of Turkey, a Turkish leader offered
condolences to the descendants of Ottoman Armenians. Such a message
would have been unthinkable a decade ago. It was a very momentous
indication of how the taboos regarding the Armenian question were
breaking in Turkey although the official stance regarding the issue
remains unchanged. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party)
government, with exception to many other issues, has taken important
steps regarding the lifting of the taboos on freely discussing 1915
when compared to the previous Turkish governments. As Giragosian puts:
“That statement not only offered a “safer space” within which to
discuss the genocide issue, it also broadened the constituency for
dialogue by sending a message not only to Armenians but also to
Erdogan’s own base of supporters. And it established an important new
precedent, whereby every Turkish prime minister will be expected to
make a similar statement timed with each April 24th commemoration of
the Armenian genocide.”

Also in 2014, Yerevan positively responded to Turkish invitation to
take part in the Erdogan’s presidential inauguration ceremony. Foreign
Minister Eduard Nalbandyan, who attended the ceremony, also invited
Erdogan to visit Armenia on April, 24 2015. It is difficult to make a
prediction whether Erdogan will visit Armenia or not but there are
some steps that Turkish government can take in Armenia-Turkey
rapprochement. Firstly, acknowledging the fact that Turkish-Armenian
relations are multifaceted, Ankara can pursue a multidimensional
policy in relations with Armenia. The Turkish-Armenian border, which
has been closed since 1994, could be open as a gesture of good will.
The long-awaited opening of the border between two neighbors would
serve significantly in opening the mental borders between two
societies. Secondly, the restoration of the diplomatic relations
between two countries and the ratification of the frozen protocols
signed between two countries in 2009 is a must for the improvement of
the bilateral ties.

In the last days of 2014, Etyen Mahçupyan, the top adviser for
theTurkish prime minister, stated that a priority for the future
should be establishing relations with Armenia as well as the
millions-strong diaspora rather than expecting to resolve a
long-running dispute within this year. Mahçupyan, who considers 2015
as a “tough year” because of the anniversary, said “I don’t think we
need to hurry 100 years on. What happens later on should proceed more
healthily.”

The improvement of the relations between two countries is not easy to
be achieved within a year, as it requires further time for the both
sides to make their societies ready and to take confidence building
measures. The both sides should not consider 2015 as an end, rather it
should be considered as a start or the efforts to normalize the ties
between two countries in the post-2015.

For both Ankara and Yerevan, there may be hard limitations in moving
toward normalization; however, dragging out the process is not in
interest of neither side. The normalization of relations between
Turkey and Armenia will be best for the interests of the two sides as
the peace and the stability at their doorsteps and in Caucasia is of
great importance to both Yerevan and Ankara.

Allow me to conclude with a quote from former Turkish Ambassador to
UK, Ünal Çeviköz, who believes that Turkey should bring out a new
initiative to overcome the deadlock in Turkish-Armenian relations.
“When I think of Turkish-Armenian relations, I am inclined to
characterize it as “history of missed opportunities” that has done
injustice not only to the two nations, the two peoples, the two
countries, but also to the whole Caucasus region. Unless there is
normalization in Turkish-Armenian relations we will have serious
difficulty in talking about an environment of sustainable peace and
stability in the Caucasus.”

_______

Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst based in Athens. Born and
lived in Kuwait, Cengiz focuses mainly on issues regarding Middle East
and Turkey’s relations with the region. She was also the former
diplomatic correspondent for Today’s Zaman newspaper, English daily in
Turkey. She is currently researching on Turkish-Saudi relations to
complete her MA in International Relations. She can be found on
Twitter:

Fuerte respuesta del Embajador de Armenia a su par azerí

2.1.15

El embajador de Armenia en Argentina,Vahagn Melikian, publicó hoy una
nueva nota en el diario Clarín sobre el conflicto por Nagorno Karabaj
en respuesta a la carta enviada por el embajador de Azerbaiyán, Mammad
Ahmadzada.

“El Embajador de Azerbaiyán confunde su misión y cree que su objetivo
en la Argentina es desmentir y corregir a los periodistas y analistas
políticos en su visión de la situación y las perspectivas de paz en el
Cáucaso del Sur”, comienza Melikian, quien desmiente lo expuesto por
Ahmadzada días atrás y señala que “aún con la mejor buena voluntad es
muy difícil definir a Azerbaiyán como estado democrático”.

“Desde los primeros años de la independencia hasta el presente la
presidencia del país ha sido transmitida de padre a hijo. El
periodismo libre es perseguido sistemáticamente. Los líderes de la
oposición son presos políticos del régimen. Los petrodólares del mar
Caspio se le han subido a la cabeza a una dirigencia sin sustento
ideológico y despreciada por su propio pueblo, al que le prohíbe
expresarse en libertad”.

“El vicio de mentir, falsear y tergiversar la verdad histórica se ha
transformado en parte inseparable de la maquinaria de propaganda
oficial de Azerbaiyán”, finaliza el embajador armenio.

A principios de diciembre, Ahmadzada envió una carta criticando una
nota del jefe de Politica Internacional de Clarín, Marcelo Cantelmi,
periodista que tiene prohibida la entrada a Azerbaiyán según una lista
negra elaborada por el gobierno y dada a conocer por Prensa Armenia
hace dos años. A esta nota se le sucedieron dos respuestas por parte
de Melikian y de Mario Nalpatian, vicepresidente de la Internacional
Socialista y miembro del Consejo Nacional Armenio Mundial, en la que
retrucaron la información de Ahmadzada. El diplomático azerí contestó
con una nueva publicación a fines de diciembre en la que acusó a la
dirigencia de Armenia de constituir un “régimen represivo de dictadura
militar-oligárquica” en su propio país.

Nagorno Karabaj es una región históricamente poblada por armenios,
pero que fue entregada a Azerbaiyán por la Unión Soviética en 1921. En
1988 la población de Karabaj pidió separarse de Azerbaiyán, lo que
desembocó en masacres y persecuciones a armenios y luego en una guerra
que se extendió hasta 1994, cuando el ejército de Nagorno Karabaj
venció al ejército azerí. En 1994 se acordó un régimen de alto el
fuego firmado por representantes de las Repúblicas de Armenia, Nagorno
Karabaj y Azerbaiyán, acuerdo que es permanentemente violado por este
último. En 1991 se fundó la República de Nagorno Karabaj mediante un
referéndum, se inició el proceso de independencia y logró constituirse
como una República con todas las instituciones democráticas de un
Estado de derecho, que pelea por su reconocimiento internacional.

Ruben Vardanian, former Troika Dialog CEO: a grumbling optimist

Jack Farchy
©Anton Belitskiy

For a man once called the poster boy of Russian capitalism, Ruben
Vardanian is remarkably relaxed about the crisis erupting around him.
Sitting in his office in one of Moscow’s premier office complexes,
which he also owns, surrounded by deal trophies and other symbols of
his success, Mr Vardanian’s response to the rouble’s collapse and the
slide towards recession is typically Russian: it has been worse.

`It’s all relative,’ he says, before counting off a list of Russian
economic crises of the past quarter century since the collapse of the
Soviet Union. `Looking back for 25 years being in this country I can
tell you, there are always challenges.’

The 46-year-old Mr Vardanian knows that better than most. The former
chief executive of Troika Dialog, one of Russia’s leading investment
banks for the past two decades, has had a front-row seat for each of
the country’s economic crises.

To some extent, Mr Vardanian can afford to be laid back. Troika was
sold in 2011 to state-owned Sberbank, Russia’s largest lender; he
later stepped down from day-to-day work at the company, although he
remains an adviser to Sberbank’s chief executive.

Some of his former colleagues and competitors may envy his timing:
anal – ysts expect a sharp decline in investment banks’ revenues in
Russia in 2014 as equity and bond issuance has all but ground to a
halt amid western sanctions and a tumble in valuations. Many western
banks are relocating staff out of Moscow.

But Mr Vardanian rejects the idea that Russia has become a wasteland
for investment bankers.

As in 1991, when the break-up of the Soviet Union triggered an
enormous political and economic upheaval in Russia, the country is now
at another such inflection point, he says.

He remembers 1991 well, as a young man just in his twenties: `Sitting
in Moscow, I said [to myself], I have two options. One, the Soviet
Union will stay, we will go back and I will emigrate. The second
choice is that Russia would build capitalism. This is a huge
opportunity.

`Now 24 years later I am sitting with you and we’re talking about the
same thing.’

Just as he did in 1991, Mr Vardanian is backing Russia to choose the
market-friendly path.

`Yes there will be ups and downs, yes there will be situations where
people will be upset and nervous, like happened many times in the
past, but in the end it is unstoppable [?.?.?.?] in 20 years’ time
there will continue to be a market economy in Russia.’

That may seem like optimism to some in Moscow at the moment. Vladimir
Putin’s return in 2012 to a third term as president has coincided with
a sharp rise in the influence of the state in Russian business.

The trend that has only been exacerbated by the latest economic
crisis, with Vladimir Yevtushenkov, one of the country’s wealthiest
men, being arrested late last year and his oil company seized and
renationalised. Even though Mr Yevtushenkov was recently released, the
case has sent a chill through Moscow’s business circles.

Many Russians of Mr Vardanian’s generation, who came of age in the
1990s and surfed the wave of Russia’s great opening up to the west,
are moving to Europe or North America. `Some of my friends want to
leave the country, some of them send their kids outside,’ he concedes.

Slipping into Russian for the first and only time in our interview, he
describes himself as a vorchashcy optimist ‘ a grumbling optimist.

There would be no comfort in saying that the country had no future and
then being proved right, he says, as the whole world would be affected
in such a scenario. The idea that one could emigrate to Italy or Spain
and `drink good wine’ free from the stresses of home would only be a
`big illusion’.

For all that, the path he has chosen suggests a recognition that the
boom times for Russian capitalism of the late 1990s and early 2000s
are unlikely to return.

Having run Troika for more than a decade before selling it, emerging
with a fortune estimated at $850m by Forbes, Mr Vardanian is throwing
his considerable energies and charm into the world of charity.

Just as he was in Russian investment banking in the 1990s, he is also
a pioneer in Russian philanthropy.

`Today in Russia is the first generation which has wealth, which needs
to leave something for the next generation?.?.?.?It’s the first time
for 100 years. In 1917 it stopped, and basically you didn’t have
anything to leave for your kids.’

Official statistics, he points out, say there are 230,000 Russians
earning more than $1m a year. `It’s not ultra-oligarchs but if you
have a million dollars it’s already big money. Do you want to spend
this money now, or do some charity? It’s a challenging question.’

As with investment banking, Mr Vardanian has jumped into the world of
charity with both feet. He is providing education and services for
wealthy Russians who are wondering what to do with their millions,
setting up a business to provide services to charities as well as
engaging enthusiastically in philanthropy. He bridles at the word,
though. `Philanthropy usually means you’re giving money and forgetting
about it. I am quite actively involved in the management decisions.
It’s like capitalism .?.?.?Keeping all this pressure, being a tough
investment banker, but delivering results for charities.’

He has only so much time for the pledge made popular among
billionaires by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to give at least half
their wealth to charity. It recently received its first Russian
adherent in Vladimir Potanin, CEO and part owner of Norilsk Nickel.

Mr Vardanian believes that, in a country like Russia, it is not enough
to wait until after you die to hand over the money, as the pledge
allows.

`In our case I believe some of the people need to spend this wealth
now, to make a dramatic transformation. Because in our countries we
need these changes much more dramatically compared to more developed
countries.’

His four children will inherit only property. He and his wife will
spend the rest of their wealth on charitable projects during their
lifetimes, he says.

Many of his projects focus on Armenia, the country of his childhood
and parents ‘ although he is quick to say that he does not hold an
Armenian passport and has no political ambitions.

He is spending an estimated $80m to build what he says is the world’s
longest cable car to the ninth-century Tatev monastery in southern
Armenia, as well as to restore the monastery. He has built a school in
Dilijan in the north that he hopes, as a member of the United World
Colleges network, will help open up the world to young Armenians.

He is planning a project to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the
1915 Armenian genocide by paying tribute to the people and
organisations that helped to save Armenian lives.

Mr Vardanian tells a story of how his grandfather as a child was saved
from the genocide by American missionaries who ran an orphanage.

`I became successful and today I can have a discussion with you about
my wealth because 100 years ago four missionaries went to a crazy
place where there was a war and saved 150 kids,’ he says. `Now I’m the
rich person, I want to give back.’

Ambassadors of Armenia and Azerbaijan Discuss in the Argentine Media

Agencia Prensa Armenia

The current Armenian Ambassador to Argentina, Vahagn Melikian, sent a
letter to Clarin ( Link -> ) , the largest
newspaper in Argentina, about the conflict of Nagorno Karabakh in
response to a letter sent by the Ambassador of Azerbaijan, Mammad
Ahmadzada.

“The Ambassador of Azerbaijan confuses his mission and believes his
goal in Argentina is to deny and correct the opinions of journalists
and political analysts about the situation and the prospects for peace
in the South Caucasus” begins Melikian.

“It is very difficult to define Azerbaijan as a democratic state. From
the first years of independence to the present the presidency has been
passed from father to son. The free press is pursued
systematically. The opposition leaders are political regime
prisoners. The petrodollars of the Caspian Sea got to the head of a
leadership without ideological support and despised by his own people,
to whom they prohibit to freely express themselves”.

“The vice of lying, distort and misrepresent the historical truth has
become an inseparable part of the machinery of official propaganda of
Azerbaijan” concludes the Armenian ambassador.

In early December, Ahmadzada sent a letter to the newspaper
criticizing an article written by the head of the International
section in ClarÃ-n Marcelo Cantelmi, a journalist that had already
been victim of the persecution of the Azerbaijani government in August
2013, when he was added to the country’s blacklist and banned from
entering Azerbaijan. In the article, Ahmadzada said that Armenia has a
“repressive regime of military-oligarchic dictatorship” and that
Nagorno Karabakh “is an internationally recognized territory of
Azerbaijan.”

This was followed by two responses of Vahagn Melikian and Mario
Nalpatian, Vice President of the Socialist International, which were
subsequently answered by Ahmadzada, all published by Clarin.

( Link -> )

Agencia de Noticias Prensa Armenia
Armenia 1366, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Tel. (5411) 4775-7595
[email protected]
twitter.com/PrensaArmenia